Shepherd writeup
draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-05

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational,
 Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in 
the title page header?

A. draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-02 draft is a 'standards track' document. This intended status is indicated
in the document header. The document introduces a new 6lo Routing header type for the 6loRH packet defined
in RFC8138.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a 
Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved 
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

  RFC 8138 specifies the 6LoWPAN Routing Header (6LoRH),
  compression schemes for RPL routing (source routing) 
   operation [RFC6554], header compression of RPL Packet
   Information [RFC6553], and IP-in-IP encapsulation.  This document
   specifies a new Deadline-6LoRHE type for the 6LoWPAN Dispatch Page 1,
   so that the deadline time of data packets can be included within the
   6LoWPAN routing header.  This document also specifies handling of the
   deadline time when packets traverse through time-synchronized
   networks operating in different timezones or distinct reference clocks.
   Time synchronization is not mandated in this document, rather it points to
    different available time synchronization solutions for low power and lossy networks.



Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
 points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?

A.  Working group has provided many input towards development of the document during the initial phase before it is becoming a WG document.
Once these comments were incorporated into the document, the draft went for successful adoption call. After that  two reviewers provided thorough comments including the shepherd.
Working group has a rough consensus to move this draft towards IESG submission.

Document Quality:

The document is  has been clarified with editorial changes in -02. A few more nits need to be updated as mentioned in the shepherd's comments. Other than that , it is ready.

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their 
plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a 
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no 
substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)?
 In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

A.

draft-ietf-6lo-deadline-time-01 has been implemented in open source OpenWSN environment and got merged
with the main distribution.

The github links for this is available at:

https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/tree/develop/openapps/uexpiration

https://github.com/openwsn-berkeley/openwsn-fw/pull/355

The shepherd or working group are unaware of any forthcoming vendor implementation of the document, however
openwsn source code is used by many low power vendors(6tisch).

The working group has provided feedback to the document -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/?q=6lo-deadline-time 
Geoorge Papadopoulos and Samita Chakrabarti reviewed the recent document version -01.
Previously the working group commented on the non-working group version of the document
and the comments are available at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/?q=6lo-expiration


 
Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd: Samita Chakrabarti, Responsible Area Director: Suresh Krishnan


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version
 of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

A. Document shepherd has reviewed the -01 version of the document. The -02 reflects comments from document
shepherd and George Papadopoulos. The document is ready for publication.



(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been 
performed?

A. The document has been reviewed by many working group members throught its journey.The working group
   agrees to make it a standard track document. Document shepherd has no particular concerns on the reivews.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security,
 operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took 
place.

A. Not applicable.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the
 Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
 with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event,
 if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail 
those concerns here.

A.  It has been reviewed by a number of WG members and the shepherd. It is ready to advance.

 A note to the Area Director: A few references to draft-ietf-roll-routing-dispatch-05 should be changed to
 RFC 8138. 



(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with 
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

A. No IPR disclosures had been filed by the co-authors of the document. Confirmation with each author is
 in progress.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and 
conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
A. No

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few 
individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

A. The working group as a whole understands and agrees with the progress of this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the 
areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate 
email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

A. No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. 
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; 
this check needs to be thorough.

No issues found.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type,
 and URI type reviews.

A. Not Applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

A. Yes. However, the 6tisch-terminology reference may be moved to "informative" section.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an
 unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
A. No. 

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references
 to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

A. None except the reference of 6tisch-terminology document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the
 title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in 
the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of 
this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG 
considers it unnecessary.

No. This document will not update any base 6lo documents or  existing RFCs.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to
 its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes 
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA 
registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed 
specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
 are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

A. The document requests an IANA change.It introduces a new 6loRH type. The value is left as TBD. Version -02
   draft does not clearly state if this IANA reigistry will fall into Critical 6LoRH type or Elective 6loRH
   type assignments or both.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public
 guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

A.https://www.iana.org/assignments/_6lowpan-parameters/_6lowpan-parameters.xhtml#critical-6lowpan-routing-header-type

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the
 document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.(1) What type of 
RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
 Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

A. Manual checks are performed by the shepherd. The document is seeking Standards track.

Back